37
own culture abroad and gain mutual respect for each others’ culture. These forms of cultural diplomacy
may help to further other objectives of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, e.g., to help to win foreign
contracts for home enterprises. The UK seems to have the biggest emphasis on economic interest. If this
is the case, international cultural policy formulation is best seen as a side-kick of foreign affairs and has
little to do with inducing a thriving international cultural exchange. From the point of view of the cultural
sector it may be better to leave the initiative with the Minister of Culture. Then priority may be given to
the highest artistic quality of culture offered abroad rather than popular expressions of culture geared
towards other motives than the arts. It also seems more likely that priority will be given to fund and
attract foreign expressions of culture that are not offered at home, e.g., Third World music, Berber
culture, Bombay films, etc. (Denmark, France, Sweden, Netherlands). This added diversity has intrinsic
value for the cultural climate of a country. Another reason is that it encourages more competition among
home producers of culture, which also leads to a more thriving cultural climate. From this perspective
some countries host the best foreign young visual artists, film directors, architects, musicians, etc. if they
are judged to be of higher merit than home-grown talent. Not all countries agree (France).
It is important to measure the effects of international cultural policy. Although this has not been
done on a systematic basis, promotion of Swedish and French music abroad seems to be successful. In
France music sales abroad rose from 1.5 million items in 1992 to 39 million items in 2000, even though
the French government probably judges this spectacular growth insufficient to counter the dominance of
the Anglo-Saxon music industry. France also strives to promote their film, TV and radio abroad, again
with some success. Denmark has with the films of its Dogma group shown considerable success abroad
while Finland obtains similar results in music, design and dance. Not only Britain is trying to promote a
‘cool’ image. Also, Austria wishes to change towards a more modern image building on, say, the popular
music of Kruder and Dorfmeister. Both countries make use of branding, corporate identities and joint
marketing approaches to promote their culture abroad.
There is a heated debate about whether one should adopt protectionist cultural policy or not. Some
countries argue that it is better to empower artists so that they can compete on international markets (UK,
Netherlands). Other countries (led by France) disagree strongly and coin their protectionist tendencies
with the goal of promoting cultural diversity. This goal is not controversial if it amounts to special
instruments to sell French films, books or music outside France or to offering ethnic minorities the
chance to express their culture or to bring in more non-European culture within national borders.
However, it is controversial if it boils down to keeping as much culture from the US out of Europe.
Although there may be a case for promoting own-language products and blocking foreign-language
products, this is generally a dangerous route to take and often in direct conflict with the objectives of
liberalising international trade.